Let's cut through the chase: Jesus didn't exist.

[spidergoat]

The best circumstantial evidence that Jesus existed is the newly discovered Gnostic texts of Nag Hammadi. If Jesus was simply a fictional character designed to give weight to teachings created by the early church, there would be consistancy in the stories about him. In fact, these texts represent a very different point of view than that of orthodox Christianity, which tells us that this was either a very unlikely coincidence, or that there was a real Jesus who's fame and teaching was co-opted by others.

 

[superluminal]

Thoroughly research means research what the scripture means and what Jesus was trying to say. What anti-Christian proponents do is take the scripture literally, and at the sametime calling Christians who take it literally ignorant.

What Jesus was saying in the verses, "10:34-37 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." was that when a person accepts Christ, they will often find ridicule from family members. Jesus is telling you to stick with it, no matter how bad it gets, because eventually they will accept you for what you believe in. He is telling people not to make peace, in other words not giving into the ridicule and renouncing Christ, but to worship regardless.

Literal interpretation of the Bible is not the correct way to go about it. And in fact very few Christians take the Bible literally, or else they would all be as crazy as the evangelicals and the televangilests like Pat Robertson.

Well QM, that sounds like a fine position to take. But how many contradictory interpretations of this one statement do you think are possible? Why did he not say in the equivalent words of his time

"Hang in there my child. I know your family is bent out of shape over this, but stick with it. If they truly love you, they'll understand and respect you for your choice to believe in me."

He is clearly being aggressive, hostile, and downright nasty in this statement. There is no other slant I can see. He's saying "Fuck you if you don't love me above all else". Is this the lord of love? The gentle carpenter? The sower of peace?

Crap.

 

[QuarkMoon]

Well QM, that sounds like a fine position to take. But how many contradictory interpretations of this one statement do you think are possible? Why did he not say in the equivalent words of his time

"Hang in there my child. I know your family is bent out of shape over this, but stick with it. If they truly love you, they'll understand and respect you for your choice to believe in me."

He is clearly being aggressive, hostile, and downright nasty in this statement. There is no other slant I can see. He's saying "Fuck you if you don't love me above all else". Is this the lord of love? The gentle carpenter? The sower of peace?

Crap.

Again, you fail to realize what the Bible is. It's not a novel, and it's not a memoir. It's poetry, metaphors stacked on metaphors. Ever read any Shakespear? Does he ever outright say anything? No, he uses poetic terms and sentence structure to get his points and stories across. A lot of times Jesus will be telling a story about someone, and anti-Christians will take it as if Jesus was preaching it. There is no way you can fully understand the Bible just by reading it like a novel, research what he meant with his words.

Oh, and before the ad-hominem attacks come flying, I am not a Christian and I do not believe Jesus ever existed.

 

[spidergoat]

No, he's saying that what he was talking about was contrary to the entire social system of the time, and that the reaction most people would have to it would be antagonistic, even within your own family. He preached such radical views as the notion that women could participate in roles traditionally reserved for men, such as priests.

 

[Mythbuster]

Plinty The Younger: (112 A.D.) also a secular historian talks about Jesus/early Chruch.
Plinty was Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, Pliny wrote a letter to the Emperor Trajan regarding how to deal with Christians who worship Christ. These letters concern an episode which marks the first time the Roman government recognized Christianity as a religion separate from Judaism, and sets a precedent for the massive persecution of Christians that takes place in the second and third centuries.

"They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."

Tactius: (55-117 A.D.)
a roman historian wrote...""Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

So, we know from outside sources that jesus did miracles, died, and rose. No ancien Jewish, or Roman source has ever said that Jesus did no miracles, or rose from the dead. They just simply said Jesus did that by magic.

 

[Mythbuster]

You belive they are unhistorical. Can you offer evidence that the slauther of babies is not historical? So, it is best to conclude Jesus rose from the dead. Now can you offer an alternative?

 

[superluminal]

Again, you fail to realize what the Bible is. It's not a novel, and it's not a memoir. It's poetry, metaphors stacked on metaphors. Ever read any Shakespear? Does he ever outright say anything? No, he uses poetic terms and sentence structure to get his points and stories across. A lot of times Jesus will be telling a story about someone, and anti-Christians will take it as if Jesus was preaching it. There is no way you can fully understand the Bible just by reading it like a novel, research what he meant with his words.

Oh, and before the ad-hominem attacks come flying, I am not a Christian and I do not believe Jesus ever existed.

Ok. Do you find it the least bit of a push to base a whole life philosophy and a concrete set of certainties on "poetry, metaphors stacked on metaphors"? And do any of the "metaphors" in the bible disturb you? Can you imagine that creating this whole structure called "christianity" based on metaphor and poetry (some of which is very dark) opens the door for any lunatic to use it to his own ends with nary an argument? Is a life based on metaphor and poetry a good thing? Can you ever become any more knowledgeable and appreciative of the real universe you live in?

Harrumph.

 

[QuarkMoon]

Ok. Do you find it the least bit of a push to base a whole life philosophy and a concrete set of certainties on "poetry, metaphors stacked on metaphors"? And do any of the "metaphors" in the bible disturb you? Can you imagine that creating this whole structure called "christianity" based on metaphor and poetry (some of which is very dark) opens the door for any lunatic to use it to his own ends with nary an argument? Is a life based on metaphor and poetry a good thing? Can you ever become any more knowledgeable and appreciative of the real universe you live in?

Harrumph.

Yes, Yes, Yes, No, No.

That's why I advocate for the abolishment of organized religion. The problem is not what is said in the scripture, the problem is how it can be interpreted in many different ways to puch agendas and to commit heinous acts against humanity. The problem is the people who follow the religion, not the religion itself. However, since we can't change the religion to eliminate that problem, it is best to just get rid of it.

 

[spidergoat]

The religion is a reflection of the values of the priests who created it, and a means to propagate these values. If people use Christianity to commit "heinous acts against humanity", that's exactly what it was designed to do. The ancient Hebrews were a warlike tribe of nomads, and there are stories in the Bible that support the killing of every man, woman and child of a conquered tribe, but significantly, they were allowed to keep the young virgin girls for themselves.

 

[Mythbuster]

No Taticus wrote that Jesus died by cruifiction by Pilate. This is historical. I added Plinty to show that Christians emegred from Jesus.Also there is Jospephus, The Jewish Talumund, Gnostic writings, the NT, amd many others. smile.gif So do you belive Jesus rose from the dead? You have failed to answear that question.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

No Taticus wrote that Jesus died by cruifiction by Pilate. This is historical. I added Plinty to show that Christians emegred from Jesus.Also there is Jospephus, The Jewish Talumund, Gnostic writings, the NT, amd many others. smile.gif So do you belive Jesus rose from the dead? You have failed to answear that question.

*************
M*W: The writings of Tacitus on the crucifixion has long been considered as incredible. He employed a lot of hearsay and rumors into his writings and styled them as if they were accurate but with no first-hand witness to testify as such. However, Tacitus was considered one of the more trustworthy writers of his day, as apposed to Flavius Josephus whose writings have been proven to be forged. It's safe to say that none of the Roman writers of the day had first-hand eye witness accounts of Jesus' crucifixion nor did they have credible information that Jesus existed.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html

 

[Mythbuster]

Thanks Medicine Woman for the link.

 

[Mythbuster]

Crtics claim that Josephus was forged. That, however is a silly argument.First of all, there is no proof that such insertions into the text were ever made. They may be authentic. The Testimonium is found in every copy of Jesusphus in existence. Second, Josephus mentions many other biblically relevant occurrences that are not in dispute.This adds validity to the claim that Josephus knew about Jesus and wrote about Him since he also wrote about other New Testament things.Third, this refrence to Jesus is found in all surviving manuscripts. Fourth, Quoted in full by Eusebius(Chruch historian), c. 324 CE. Fith, the Vocabulary and style are generally consistent with that of Josephus. sixth, A more accepted reference to Jesus in Book 20 indicates that he must have been described earlier in the Antiquities, logically at the discussion of Pilate. So, the burden of proof is on the person who denies this refrence. As for Taticus, he affirms what is written in the Gospels.

Sorry im a bit confused.

 

[VitalOne]

Matthew 5:22 "Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire."

You really should learn to follow the teachings of jesus. Just a thought.

Thanks for pointing this out, you've made a good point, I've been clouded by anger lately, ironic isn't it?

Everything is fool for you



And that means religion is 100% truth ?

Ofcourse not. Just pointing out that neither should be considered 100% true, therefore who can say this is right and this is wrong and ridicule others for their beliefs?

Oh Eviscerated One,


You support the teachings of jesus but you're not a christian. What are you then?

Actually Christians have very different beliefs. Most of them follow the Church, believe in a Zeus-like God, and do not know anything about Biblical scriptures. There's a very big difference.

Oh yea verily I say unto thee, how many times can thouest use the oh so loving and jesus-like word 'fool' in one post? Try using the words "fucking hypocrite" at least ten times in your next, self reflective post. BTW, you're going to hell bub.

I don't know man, the word fool just felt perfect at the time. Going to hell? Verily (do you like this word too?), no one knows who will go to hell or heaven.

I'm guessing you don't really believe that "100% truth" is qualifiable, using any method of reasoning.

If so, would you do me the honor of quantifying the term "truth" so one could estimate the percentage of it in our discourse?



Thanks

No one truly knows what the absolute truth is, that is my point. So why ridicule others for their beliefs?

What do you believe Vitalone? Was Jesus God? The one and only?

Hey stretched,

Was Jesus God? Yeah, basically. The one and only? Yes and No. His soul, atman, is unchanging, eternal, the absolute truth, and permanent (and therefore "alpha and omega"), so in one way he is the one and only. However, though being only one, he can appear to be different, though being only one, like how the expressions 1+1 and (89*4)/178 appear different but are both the number 2.

wrong. the war between science and religion is a one-sided war. theists have resented the findings of scientific experiments for centuries based on the fact that they have often contradicted church doctrine in a way that can be backed up with abundant evidence. people dont believe that all of the conclusions of science are true, that is (for lack of a better term) "Theist Propoganda". your point of view demands that science be discredited in order to maintain your belief in the impossible, or at least in the extremely unlikely, in order to do this, you start with an assuption that "everybody" (whoever that is) believes that science is the truth 100% of the time, then you find one poorly controlled experiment, or one hoax, or one disproven conclusion, and point to it as proof of sciences ultimate fallibility. no shit. i think its become clear to most people who are educated beyond a sixth grade level that scientific analysis of any subject is a continual process, and that no particular conclusion is ever really meant to be applied universally. this "debunking of science" by theists is more of a pathetic attempt to avoid self-analysis or a distraction from their failure to adapt the ridiculous fantasy that is the religious message to a modern audience who lives in a world that is otherwise pinioned by logic and reasoning. too bad for you i guess, but seriously, take you bullshit and shove it down someone elses throat.

Hey Charles,

I think you missed my point completely. I don't suggest that science be discredited in order for my belief to seem credible. I suggest that no one knows what the 100% truth is, so why do people like you enjoy claiming you know the truth, you know what is right, and everything else is "fantasy"? Your mentality is the same type of mentality that caused people like Darwin and other scientists to be killed. Why? Because the people thought they knew what was true and what was fantasy.

In 100 years, all of which you uphold to be "true" may very well be considered "false". So how seriously should I take your "scientific" notions?

Through your logic, If you lived at the time, and no historians mentioned you, you must with 100% certainty not have existed right?

Sorry, but the feats described in scriptures as to what Jesus was supposed to have done in his time would most certainly be worthy of some mention. Either that, or the entire story was greatly embellished from a non-event.

Not really. There were many people like that at the time, claiming to do similar things. He was just another person. Also, how do you explain the literature of Jesus's teachings?

You still never answered the question, "Through your logic, If you lived at the time, and no historians mentioned you, you must with 100% certainty not have existed right?", are you going to answer it?

Science does not bring us those things you fool. Science attempts to explain those things.

So, those things somehow magically appeared from thin air only to be explained by science? Who's the fool?


Science attempts to explain things, and is ever-changing, where as the true nature of things is fixed and always the same. If someone invents something, it is not by "science" it is by the inherent nature by which things work, which science attempts to explain.

Too funny. And how is it one is able to invent something? Wishful thinking? Religious beliefs? How about an understanding of how things work - science.

Actually, a lot of inventions and breakthroughs come by accident, without any type of scientific study or anything. Science isn't the cause, science attempts to explain how things work, it's a study, that's all. It is by imagination that these things come.

Many inventions were deemed "impossible" by science at times, for instance flying was said to be impossible by SCIENCE, but it wasn't SCIENCE, it was the way things ALREADY WORKED that allowed flight to happen.

Which fantasy do I believe in?

are you proposing that there be an authoritarian society where we are forced to believe in certain things that are considered reality and forced not to believe in things that are considered fantasy?

The authority is reality. No one need be forced, its really quite simple.

Ok...?

Also, the current SCIENCE you believe in constitutes as FANTASY because it is not the 100% truth.

Of what truth do you speak? Please explain.

I should ask you the same question. You're the one claiming that religion is fantasy, and therefore you must know the 100% truth, right?

Therefore I can conclude that you are the one who accepts fantasy as reality. No one's forcing you to, but you do it anyway. Such a fool.

So, according to you, science is fantasy and god/jesus is reality?

No, according to me, neither can be considered 100% true, because no one knows what is 100% true, so how can you really label either as fantasy?

 

[Mythbuster]

Medicine Woman im hope you can reply me.

 

[VitalOne]

So, Vittle One


Jesus is a bigot I see.

He says to not go somewhere, so he's a bigot?

Jesus is fucking pissed and plans to whip some ass. Love thy enemies my ass!

So, let me snip a quote from my post...

I don't really understand what those mean, so I won't respond (yet).

What a motherfucking, egomaniacal psychopath! You follow this (most likely made up fairy tail) asswipes teachings? You sir, are a complete shitwad.

Actually, this quote makes perfect sense. Jesus is predicting the future after his death, similar to how after the disappearance of Krishna people become more impious.

Anyone who is attached to things like their mother or father will not be able to enter the kingdom of God. Jesus makes it clear that "Unless you become like little children, you will not enter the kingdom of God". Those who know psychology know that little children have little or no attachment. People who fixate their mind on Jesus, in the end will become like Jesus, and enter the kingdom of God, like the Buddha said "What we think, we become".

 

[Mythbuster]

Medicine Woman,

Crtics claim that Josephus was forged. That, however is a silly argument.First of all, there is no proof that such insertions into the text were ever made. They may be authentic. The Testimonium is found in every copy of Jesusphus in existence. Second, Josephus mentions many other biblically relevant occurrences that are not in dispute.This adds validity to the claim that Josephus knew about Jesus and wrote about Him since he also wrote about other New Testament things.Third, this refrence to Jesus is found in all surviving manuscripts. Fourth, Quoted in full by Eusebius(Chruch historian), c. 324 CE. Fith, the Vocabulary and style are generally consistent with that of Josephus. sixth, A more accepted reference to Jesus in Book 20 indicates that he must have been described earlier in the Antiquities, logically at the discussion of Pilate. So, the burden of proof is on the person who denies this refrence. As for Taticus, he affirms what is written in the Gospels.

Sorry im a bit confused.

 

[Mythbuster]

The documents about Jesu swere written much closer to Jesus than the documents of Alex the Great, and many others. Yet, scholars regard them as crediable. Jesus did exist, you should read some of my earlier posts. I do not know if she belives in Jesus, she never stated weather or not she does.Those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the first century that contest the New Testament texts. So no, they did not record false history.

 

[QuarkMoon]

What about the story of how the Earth shook the moment Jesus died? Wouldn't any eye-witnesses or people who felt the quake write about it? What about walking on water, turning water into wine, healing with his hands? No historians felt it was necessary to write about these events?

 

[qwerty mob]

No one truly knows what the absolute truth is, that is my point. So why ridicule others for their beliefs?

TM has begged to differ, and I'm open to their reply.

Aren't you even mildly critical of TM's knowledge or "100%" truth, as you are my position that it is neither; that it is instead a belief, and incoherent?

...

The term "absolute" is extremely slippery; avoid falling into the category of thinkers who freely equivocate the qualitative meaning of it with that of the presuppositional deity; the error is that of a loss of objectivity when what it is used to describe is unreconcilable.

To prove the point, the manner in which you are using the phrase "absolute truth" is a tautology, in the redundant meaning of that term, and (as a separate matter) is "negatively defined"... it doesn't assert what can be known, only what cannot be known.

If it can't be known, then it's neither true nor false.

(and if it's qualitatively absolute, it can't be known either, anyway)

So, you do see the paradox, even if you might disagree.



In simpler terms, it is the same fallacy of composition, and incoherency, as "no absolutes exist" or "this statement is absolutely false."


...

As for beliefs, the inherent problem is that of unchecked subjective assessments; no one would say beliefs are dangerous themselves (they're merely associative thoughts which occur, and may share a neuromuscular component), except that they promote an array of actions, reactions, and behaviors by a believer which may range from useless or harmless, to dangerous or even lethal. Objective examples of this abound.

There are other problems with the very nature of beliefs, the most important of which is the potential for an "infinite regression" of them, but that would merit a thread of it's own; essentially, it is that beliefs lead to further beliefs.

Jesus did exist [...]

One may believe that, but there are numerous problems with the historicity of the Jesus fellow of the Christian faith.

It's baffling that intelligent persons still trot out Josephus and other specious sources in support of a historical Jesus, because the details are all clearly hearsay and folklore even if the sources are fully genuine; there is no inherent accuracy within the aggregacy of those manuscripts, and much can be made of the disagreement of the details- up to and including a case for Josephus' account being a complete forgery.

...

When one divorces the "supernatural" component from the legendary Jesus, we have just an ordinary guy who possibly lived about 2,000 years ago.

You really can't blame those who lack a positive belief in a historical Jesus, for the room for doubt is quite large at the present time.


Greetings